What is CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. authority for?

A receipt not chargeable as capital gains under Section 45 cannot be taxed under the residuary head of income from other sources (Section 56). If a receipt is not taxable under specific provisions, it cannot be brought to tax under any other section.

How many judgments cite CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.?

140 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. (273 ITR 1), spanning 2008 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 45, Section 14, Section 48, Section 56, Section 10(3).

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. (273 ITR 1)

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

…are very important. They are not being read by the Department. These words cannot be omitted." (emphasis supplied) g. Aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd.: 273 ITR 1 (SC). h. Compensation for giving up litigation/ right to sue- capital receipt not liable to tax. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. J. Dalmia: [1984] 149 ITR 215 (Del) [Revenue's Special Leave Petition dismissed @ 189 ITR (St.) 122] wherein it was held that amounts receiv…

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 923/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

…t of the above the reliance is placed on the under mentioned decisions of courts: I Dr.TA Qureshi vs CIT-287 ITR 0547 (SC) ii. Lakhmichand Baijnath v CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC) Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v/s CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC) iv CIT v/s D P Sandu Bros Chembur (P) Ltd 273 ITR 1 (SC) v CIT v Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd 39 taxmann.com 3 (Gu)) vi JK Chokshi vs ACIT - Tax Appeal 149 of 2003 (Guj.) vii Green Associates vs PCIT-Tax Appeal No 1199 of 2018 (Gu)) viii DCIT v/s Radhe Developers India Ltd329 ITR 1 (Guj.) ix CIT vs Mhaskar General Hospital in Tax Appeal No 1474 of 2009 (Gu)) x Daulatram Rawatmull v CIT 64…

AVINASH S SADAMATE ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. RUCHI RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 620/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle – 3(3)(1), Mumbai Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.706, Room No. 522, Aayakarbhavan, Vs Tulsiani Chambers, Free Press Journal M K Road, Churchgate, Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400021. [Pan: Aaecr1591A] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 2Section 2(18)(b)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

…4 of the Act. For this proposition, he relied on the following case law: 1. Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [2015] 228 Taxman 25/[2014] 50 taxmann.com 300/368 ITR 1 (Bombay) 2. CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. [2005] 142 Taxman 713/273 ITR 1 (SC) 3. CIT v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. [1969] 73 ITR 745 (SC) 4. Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row CIT, [1966] 61 ITR 428 (SC). 5 Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. 9.1 With regard to Section 14A disallowance, he submitted that assessee has not claimed any exempt income. Therefore, the provisions of Section 14A will not apply. 10. Ld. DR re…

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

…t. CST [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 1 SCC 625 (III) M P Oil Extraction v. State of MP [1997] 7 SCC 592 (d) The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section.” CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713 (SC). (e) In the newly inserted sec. 115JC the legislature clearly mention that "deduction claimed, if any, under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes";, i.e. If the legislature have intention :; not give benefit of sec. 80IB(10) for the purpose of MAT calculation then legislature will also provide same type of p…

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…s to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of a specific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7 In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 195…

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…s to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of a specific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7 In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 195…

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…s to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of a specific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7 In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 195…

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…s to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of a specific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7 In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 195…

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…s to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of a specific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7 In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 195…

VASANT N. BARABDE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 27(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vasant Nagorao Barabde Vs Dcit Circle 27(3), 602, Sanskar Santi Park, Mumbai. Ghatkopar East, Income Tax Officer, Vashi Mumbai 400088 Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai 400703 Pan: Acmpb3211G Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Appeal No: Nfac/2017- 18/10041561 Dated 23.08.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 08.03.201 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 By Treating The Market Value Of The Paa Agreement Registered On 21.09.2017 As Taxable Income U/S 56(2)(X) Being Value Of Property For Which No Consideration Is Paid. 2. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 In The Hands Of The Assessee Instead Of Treating The Same As Exempt In The Hands Ashwini Barabde The Daughter Of The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

…, it cannot be brought to tax under the residuary provisions of section 56 i.e. under the head income from other sources. For this, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) limited [2005] 273 ITR 1(SC). 9 ITA No. 5372/Mum/2024 AY 2018-19 Vasant Nagorao Barabde 7.2. Per contra, Ld. Senior DR submitted that claim of deduction u/s. 54F was never made by the assessee and therefore, cannot be allowed. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). According to hi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 2944/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nehaar Ranjan Pandey, D.R

Section 250Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92C

…as defined in s. 2(24) of the Act....." ".....absent express legislation, no amount received, accrued or arising on capital account transaction can be subjected to tax as Income (Cadell Weaving Mill Co. vs. CIT249 ITR 265 approved in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros 273 ITR 1 followed); Therefore, there can be no income or a ALP worked out on a notional interest basis on share application money. In the case of the assessee an amount of Rs. 43,77,05,494/- and Rs.34,81,70,043/- is the year end balance in the share application money account, given to IG Interactive Entertainment Limited(UK) and UTV Games Limited respecti…

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

ITA 2719/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh

Section 143(3)Section 68

…l Weaving Mill Co. v. CIT [2011] Mill Co. v. CIT [2011] 249 ITR 265/116 Taxman 77 was upheld by the Apex 249 ITR 265/116 Taxman 77 was upheld by the Apex 249 ITR 265/116 Taxman 77 was upheld by the Apex Court in CIT v. D.P Sandu Bros. Chember (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 CIT v. D.P Sandu Bros. Chember (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 CIT v. D.P Sandu Bros. Chember (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713. This Court has in Cadell Weaving Mills Co. (s Taxman 713. This Court has in Cadell Weaving Mills Co. (s Taxman 713. This Court has in Cadell Weaving Mills Co. (supra) inter alia, inter alia, observed as under:—…